- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Analis said:don't see really any difference. They don't tell people because if they did, it would cost them money ? In other words, because it benefits them not to tell what's happening ? No matter how important it is ?
That's where the shoe pinches : the media were never led by a will to inform the public for its own benefit, but by greed. They don't report what is disturbing, or only in low key fashion, because they would lose customers. And they are supposed to be our main reliable source of information ?
No. That's not what I'm saying. As much as it's derided a short course of media studies would probably help explain to you the basic principles of how the media works (or more accurately work). If you think that bad news doesn't get reported because it would deter customers I would recommend a day reading the British press. Before the day is out the Daily Mail, for example, will have you believing that reading can give you eye cancer or the Sun might tell you that gypsies will steal your house as soon as you go out for work. If that's not enough then the Independent will probably have a picture of a polar bear crying underneath the headline 'Apocalypse?'. Bad news sells, no news is good news and good news is no news.
Analis said:I don't know if you are serious. The plant was affected by explosions soon. No such thing had happened at Three Miles Island. Explosions meant serious breaches, which meant important radioactive leaks.
It's certainly possible that they didn't know everything.
But apparently we should assume otherwise?
Analis said:But they certainly had access to readings that gave them a good idea of the gravity of the situation.
By the way, inspecting the facilities was all they could do after they had supposedly restored power supply. They had also lied about that.
What is for certain is that the situation could only worsen if they couldn't intervene. All evidence converges to demonstrate that this was the case.
http://www.politis.fr/Fukushima-Tepco-c ... 14247.html
Quote:
Fukushima : Tepco is beginning to admit
......
This admission did not come without reasons : on 24 May, a team of twenty experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency will begin an inspection of the damage and of the plants, which last about ten days. Even taking into account the IAEA's well known leniency, it could only state, and then report that Tepco has been lying since the accident about whappened in the plant...
There's that word 'lying' again. Could you possibly provide an example of where the IAEA has reported that Tepco has been lying since the accident, otherwise it's difficult to credit the aritcle (or its interpretation) with any value. Thanks.
Analis said:So they could have misled the public after all ?
Mass panic ? Probably, it was one of their concerns. But the situation that led to the possibility of mass panic is the consequence of their careless policy. A policy whose consequences they couldn't face.
Not neccessarily. Mass panic could be a consequence of scare-mongering by others overstating or distorting the data. There are a few, both in the mainstream and non-mainstream media, who have form for exploiting fears for their own ends (one of them being to shift newspapers, get eyes on screens, that sort of thing).
Analis said:Not any claim, but a good deal of them do.
Quite, which is why it's worth at least trying to approach the claims with an open mind.
Analis said:The systems worked ? Not well, as there was damage that should never have been in the case of an earthquake of this magnitude. Despite previous reassurances that the plants were 100 % fullproof. Another illustration of their thoughtlessness.
Evidently they have never claimed to be 100% fullproof. If they did then there would have been no need for any plans to deal with the exceptions to their claims. At the end of the day the success will be measured in long-term effects, effects which have to be balanced against alternatives. The short term effects have been relatively benign given the example of Chernobyl.
Analis said:Don't put the wrong blame on the wrong people.
They have agendas, like almost any website or media. But they are not those who are involved in the fact that those questions are usually ignored.
No, they're just peddling miracle cures for cancer.
Analis said:With the consequences we are now facing.
As for the reasons, yes, the most likely are the links between the nuclear industries and the political world.
In France, I can provide evidence of a similar situation : a study of the ASN (Nuclear Security Authority) showed that EDF deliberately underestimated seismic risks, ignoring the studies of the IRSN (Institute for Radiological protection and Nuclear Security). The other revelation is that the IRSN knew that, chose to remain silent and took no action. In fact, the ASN took no more action (although it could change, after Fukushima).
Then please provide the evidence so we can summarise it for ourselves. That aside Fukushima was not brought to its present condition by an earthquake but by a tsunami so the comparison is somewhat faulty to begin with.
Analis said:?!?
Probably the reason why the intervention in situ couldn't be conducted properly, despite that the staff wore heavy protective clothes. In fact, an intervention in a severely damaged nuclear facility is impossible to conduct properly, without sacrificing the workers - what the Soviets had done at Chernobyl.
The IAEA has reclassified the incident at the level 7, the same than Chernobyl. And relating to impact on public health, it had been unremarkable at Chernobyl in the aftermath of the accident too - except fot he workers who had been sent in situ.
Well, in that respect the numbers don't compare:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... comparison
It's the same level but that doesn't mean the impact is the same - you can't get any higher than a level 7. In the real world nuclear meltdowns don't restrict their effects so as not too exceed classification. Chernobyl was considerably worse. Very few are suggesting otherwise.
Analis said:This one, in my opinion, is best left ignored.
Then please feel free to do so with as much success as you like. I stand by it and I've seen nothing since which would convince me it's incorrent. The desire to escalate Fukushima to the level of destruction caused by Chernobyl is only the latest example of a sort of persistent disaster-lust.
Analis said:Be careful : a suspicious mind might conclude that you have an agenda... See how it is easy to ascribe nefarious motives to anybody.
Yes, I do. That's the point I've been making re the quacks and conmen you cite and so on. I'm glad it's catching on. Although I wouldn't say I was ascribing any nefarious motives, just subconscious ones.